User:The ed17/Archives/64

Wikicup update for the Signpost FC report
The Wikicup page says that May 1 is a milestone for this year's Wikicup competition. Would you and Milburn be willing to write a brief update about the competition for The May 6th Signpost FC report? --Pine✉ 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, let me talk with J first. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Please post on my talkpage if you're able to submit something for inclusion. --Pine✉ 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ed- I've written this. Is there anything you'd like to add? J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Top 10 draft
Even if too late for this edition, take a look this draft. I did a compact version of the Top 25, making it a Top 10, and found it not very difficult to do. Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-29/Article_Popularity_Report.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Milowent, I'll put that in this week's edition! Is a biweekly edition okay with you, or would adding both weeks together and then figuring out the page views be more trouble than it is worth? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, combining two weeks would be a pain, it would involve merging the data from two Top25 reports, re-ordering, redoing the summary, etc. Also the WP:5000 we use to create the Top25 is done weekly, and that's all Andrew's work.  What I did is easily distilled from the weekly reports we are now doing.  Perhaps it wouldn't be a problem if the report is only included in the Signpost every other week, because editors can always go to WP:TOP25 to see intervening weeks, if they are interested?  Or, if the report proves popular enough after a trial period, it could appear every week?  Like Nielsen TV ratings, not everyone will read it, but they are there for those interested, and its presence doesn't offend anyone nor take away "space" from other content.  I really think its the sort of chart we could see regularly cited in the press.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine -- let's see how this week's report does, then make a final decision. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's try a weekly format, if that's okay with you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispatches again
Re our earlier conversation, I am working on something, but realistically it will be for the first Signpost in July rather than June, as I have a lot of stuff going on at the moment, and need more time for research. I'll drop you a note later, when I am a little more advanced. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is fine&mdash;thank you for letting me know. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Saratoga image review
Whenever you get a chance, I'd appreciate it if you could see if the images that I swapped out for the problematic ones are good to go in the Saratoga review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll return to it as soon as I get the chance&mdash;thanks for reminding me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Med and ME
As far as I am aware there is no other theatre with such a title, so I am just wondering why you tacked on "of World War II" to the end of the article? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mediterranean Theatre" is ambiguous; what kind of theatre are we talking about, etc.? There is also the redlink Mediterranean theatre of World War I. Moving it to this name provides clarity while also making it consistent with the other WWII theatres. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:WW2InfoBox
I have started a conversation about the changes to Template:WW2InfoBox at Talk:World War II. I personally dont really have a problem with the changes but going to bring it up for a talk because its a big change and the fact UrbanNerd nor you have started a conversation about this since the reversals. UrbanNerd has a reputation of editwaring and insulting people and I dont what to see this happen on such a high profile article. Lets =simply get a few others to chime in on this before it gets out of hand.Moxy (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave a note there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I want this to be transparent...
We have a problem concerning who did/should have reached this current round of the WikiCup. Our lowest possibly-qualifying scorers were Wizardman (144), Sven Manguard (137, but see below), Grandiose (136) and MasterOfHisOwnDomain (123). MasterOfHisOwnDomain was the second highest scorer in a pool, so he makes it through- them's the rules. Wizardman would have been the lowest scoring fastest loser, but requested that he be withdrawn if he made it though; as such, I put Sven through. However, I have just realised that Sven actually claimed a good article review completed after the round end- I understand that there was a legitimate misunderstanding about the rules here, but I didn't catch the issue, and Sven's started this round with a relish. As such, Grandiose should have made it through to the next round. I feel Grandiose is being denied something that should be his if he is not put through, but I also feel unfair taking from Sven what has already been given, especially when he certainly was not attempting to deceive, and is very much taking part in this round. What I propose is that we make an exception and allow 65, instead of 64, to make it through to this round. One pool (I'll roll a D4) will have an extra competitor. What do you think about this? I will also notify the users I mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't object to being kept in the tournament, and considering my position, I can't object to Grandiose staying in. Now I could argue that I had points locked up from a portal and none of this would have mattered if the portal was promoted on time (I've claimed it for this round since it was promoted late), but that's a risk inherent in the Cup, and I've no interest in being a pedant. My opinion is as follows: 1) As much as I like polyhedral dice, Grandiose should be put in my group. It's the fairest of several unfair options. Besides, while I aim to compete, I am under no illusions that if I progress, I'm going to process as part of the slush 8, because I simply can't match the 1000 point output that group leaders are going to churn out (i.e. what group I'm in really doesn't matter), and 2) While clearly stated, the two day fallow periods are counter-intuitive. That's what lead to this confusion. Next year it should be done away with. It's probably early enough in this round to do away with it for this round and the rest of the tournament. I know that the coordinators need time to set up the next round, but most of the work can be done in advance anyways, I'm sure you can figure out a way to make it work.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Roll Grandiose in. Ultimately this is for fun and to encourage quality editing, and that goal is achieved with either 64 or 65 participants! Resolute 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. For future's sake, it might have been best to immediately drop Wizardman once he said he wouldn't be able to participate in the next round.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing away with the fallow periods (I like that name...) this year as I don't think it's fair to change the rules mid-game, but it's something that can be discussed for next year. I'll go ahead with this as long as Ed is OK with it. J Milburn (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle I would always be open to allowing another user through where this seems the best thing to do. In this case, although I doubt I sahll prgress further, I would like to take part and am happy with the application of the general principle to put us both through. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * J, that sounds like a great compromise. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, done. I'm also sending out the most recent newsletter now. It's only a week late... J Milburn (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Interviews at Signpost
Hi Ed. I was curious, have they stopped doing the interview series at The Signpost? Based on the schedule at the Interviews desk, it looks like they haven't done one in five months or so. CorporateM (Talk) 00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We did an op-ed/interview a little bit ago, but yes, we haven't done one in awhile. Why do you ask? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh, I remember a while back we did a whole series of paid editing interviews and I feel, especially now that I have matured as a COI contributor, I could have a lot of interesting perspective that is very different from those. But seeing as those paid editor interviews were the last ones we did, I think the horse has already been beat to death, shot with an oozie and blown up with dynamite. CorporateM (Talk) 15:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was last year's pet topic for awhile. :-) I know you wrote an op-ed last year (July? August?); please feel free to draw up another if you are so inclined! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit of a dead-horse like I mentioned, but I went ahead and posted anyway to see what folks say. I think it was in June of last year I did an op-ed that I would still support today, regarding how the default role of PR pros should be to support our editors with corrections, sources and other resources, rather than write the article themselves. This is more representative of traditional PR. I know from experience that it is extremely difficult for companies to be neutral about themselves, even if they want to, and most of the time they are not even making an attempt. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My work-in-progress is at: User:CorporateM/signpost. I'll keep working on it next week. CorporateM (Talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

South-East Asian theatre of World War II
I reverted this move See Manual of Style/Capital letters. SEAC or "save our English colonies" was primarily a British Empire theatre, so it should use British English spelling. -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that's the correct spelling? Google Ngram and most books I've seen typically use "Southeast". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you need to eliminate the American usage about the war and the American usage after World War II for their conflict in "Southeast Asia" during the Vietnam War in "Indochina" (another ENGVAR). Eg: "had General Westmoreland been appointed a Southeast Asia theater commander". Besides the article title is a descriptive one and is in British English (unlike the article South East Asia Command which the name by which the command was known both in American and British sources) and the original author chose to use British English. A similar situation exists for South West Pacific theatre of World War II and South West Pacific Area (command) notice in both cases the use of theatre instead of theater and that the fist letter of the word theatre is not capitalised (SWPtWWII is spelt the way it is because the original editor was User:Grant65, who is from Australia). Both of them also mirror the spelling used for the commands. -- PBS (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thank you for the detailed explanation :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

P Class Sloops
Another subject to mention. I think you would enjoy this blog from one of the museum curators here in Newcastle. http://www.twmuseums.org.uk/engage/blog/author/ianwhitehead/. I have then found the relevant Wikipedia article and tried to add material to it. I am explaining on this side all google searches find the Wiki article long before they find the blog. TWAMWIR (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen and read the blog from 22 November 1910 before! He's a very helpful resource, but I only saw it after going through many Google search pages. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Editor of the Week template--make a regular section?. You can [ remove this notice] at any time. --Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 18:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2013
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 22:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Signpost
What's going on with the issue of the Signpost presumably for May 5? I have commenced work on May 12, but am afraid it'll be out-of-date at the time of publication. Go  Phightins  !  22:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Phightins, editions are now published Wednesday, which is a much better time of week for getting emailed quotations from sources. This week's edition is late for no better reason than real-life chaos on the part of more than one writer ... I believe Ed will be up soon and will publish promptly. Tony   (talk)  13:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. No problem, I was just confused. I agree that Weds. is a better time. Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  20:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Minas Geraes
New TIFF uploads are now here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/TWAMWIR. They are from the same set as before so the same copyright situation save one is a shipyard photo and not a postcard. I tried very hard to copy and paste the licensing information you provided. Try as I might when I cut and paste it refused to upload so I resorted to another answer which has some truth. TWAMWIR (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you! If you're going to cut and paste, you will definitely want to use the old upload form. I've tweaked the licensing of the images; Commons requires licenses for both the source country and the US. The postcards, which have a publishing date, are easy, while I'm assuming that the archives holds any copyright for the launch photo, as it would if it hasn't been previously published.
 * Would the archives happen to have a version of File:DF.CLR-8-21 Minas Geraes soon after completion..tif] that doesn't cut off the lifeboats? I scanned the current image out of Scientific American, but the scanner wasn't wide enough to get the edges, and there are the aforementioned problems with scanning from newsprint as opposed to photographic negatives. Other than that, awesome! If the archives has a wider image and you can scan it in the same way, I should be able to get the final product to featured picture without a problem after a little restoration. Getting File:DG-CLR-8-23 Battleship Minas Geraes testfiring guns..tif featured may be a bit harder, but I'll ask some of my image friends for opinions. File:DF.CLR-8-29 The Launch of the Minas Geraes.tif is a bit too indistinct (i.e. we can't see her swinging the bottle) to be featured, but I'll add it to the articles with the other two launch images later today, as it's after 6am here and I really should sleep. Thanks again&mdash;I'm really excited to be getting these images! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid the original postcard printer cut the lifeboats if they were ever there on the negative. Getting people to work out the folk in the picture of the launch would be an interesting challenge. An interesting Agincourt letter is now beside me. I hope to scan it. TWAMWIR (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's disappointing but not too surprising, all in all. I know that Senhora Regis de Oliveira was the person swinging the bottle (she was the wife of the Brazilian minister to the UK), and that Duarte Huet de Bacellar, the head of the Brazilian naval mission to the UK (overseeing the construction of their warships) is almost certainly one of the naval officers on the left side of the platform, as he gave a speech immediately prior to the launch. If/when I find the English translation again, because I know that I've read one somewhere, I'll send you the link. The closest I can find right now is this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also assume that Sir Andrew Noble, the chairman of Armstrong Whitworth, is on that platform. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June
FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images
Dear The ed17, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. All views welcome. BencherliteTalk 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo?
On Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/News_and_notes - "more than US$11M in its first of operation" - first year, I assume? -- Menti  fisto  04:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Thank you very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

American Women Novelists: Procedure apparently being ignored?
A couple weeks ago, you closed the American Women Novelists CfD with the following result:
 * The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. All included and/or Distinguished subcategory should be kept on the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion?

This decision has since been ignored in favor of splitting Category:American novelists into "men" and "women" subcategories, leaving only a handful in the parent category. As it happens, my own preference was for neither of those results, but I was willing to abide by the consensus. Am I missing some reason why it can be flouted as it apparently has been? — Shmuel (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I haven't been following it closely, further discussion has been going on at Category talk:American novelists, and I hope an RfC will be opened soon for a final word on that mess. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia email
And a great job you are doing too! I would imagine moving all the subpages would work just fine, so long as redirects are left in place for all of the many template inclusions. It would be worth making sure the talk page delivery bot doesn't break, too. --<span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 16:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pretzels! I'm trying to get in touch with the bot's operator, Jarry1250, right now. It would be good to finally do this years after it was proposed. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

KFC
Why was the KFC FA nomination deleted?Farrtj (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I assumed a FAC delegate had gotten in touch with you. I deleted it per Ian Rose's request, which I believe he explained [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=556011135&oldid=555958889 here]. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Significant work and the WIkiCup
Hey, I've been asked to make a judgement call on the issue raised here and here. I'm having a rather stressful time on Wikipedia at the moment for non-WikiCup reasons. If you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to post/take action as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've commented there, and please let me know if I can do anything else, for the Cup or elsewhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arizona edits
I've been having a slow-motion edit war with over some of the language in the Arizona article. Check it out and see what you think about his edits. I'm not a fan, but you may disagree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried rewording the contentious parts a bit&mdash;do you like it? I'm not wedded to the changes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with the two sentences is that they are not encyclopedic. The second sentence is also redundant, as the following sentences say all that needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How are they not? I think the first one is, and I rewrote the second...[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Arizona_%28BB-39%29&diff=556463270&oldid=556454253] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Stalker
Who made you administrator???? Periglio (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They did. Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do I know you? You're a relatively new user, but judging by your contributions, you seem to know your way around the place, so I don't know if I encountered you under a different username. In any case, hello to you too. I was granted admin rights in 2009 but haven't used them too terribly much or controversially, that I know of. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You know me personally, although you declined my Facebook request :P Periglio (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have five declined friends there, and I doubt any of them are you! Email me and let's figure this out, as opposed to putting private info in the public view. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, how embarrassing. Having reviewed the evidence I have no idea who you are! A couple of years ago, you worked on an article at the same time as an anon on my works static IP. As my colleague was called Eddy, I jumped to a wrong conclusion. Please ignore me and carry on with your life :) Periglio (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no worries! No harm done. Happy editing! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota meetups
We've confirmed we're having the meetups on June 1 and July 6 at Minneapolis Central Library; details aren't up for the Wiknic. It'd be great to have you come, but I don't expect much of a turnout for any of the summer events, so it might not be worth your while to come to these especially if you can come to later ones. &mdash;innotata 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I'm not sure if I can make it to them yet, as I may have entirely different hours next week, but I will try. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii FAC?
Can you contact the author of the book on the Alaska-class variants so we can see what changes we need to make to the article in prep for FAC like we discussed before?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll send another email to him. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RE:
Ok i will any specific article you are referring to? Koala15 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2013
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for April 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">About &middot; Subscribe/unsubscribe &middot; Distributed via Global message delivery, 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation highlights
 * New notifications system launches on the English Wikipedia
 * Wikidata's content can now be used on all Wikipedias
 * Wikimedia Commons app announced for iOS and Android
 * Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) publishes its recommendations about $1.2 million
 * New conflict of interest guidelines
 * Data and Trends
 * Financials
 * Other movement highlights
 * Chapters conference and GLAM-Wiki events
 * Students create the first online Arabic-Serbian dictionary
 * "Wiki Loves Sound" enriches Wikipedia with audio recordings

Re: WikiCup significant work
Thank you Ed for resolving the issue and clarifying what significant work entailed. I had actually known about how some of this user's WikiCup submissions were questionably significant long before, but chose to stay silent until now. I didn't want to be a difficult nitpick for both you and J Milburn, but after seeing how this isn't a one-off thing, I actually went through each of his DYK submissions. I found two more (Friedrich Wilhelm Rust and Mahango Game Park) that appear borderline, but as with last time, you make the call on their significance. Once again, thanks for all your assistance. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to trouble you again, but his latest three additions (Roholte Church, Wildlife of Haiti and Emilio Boggio) are also questionable. This appears to be getting ridiculous (to say the least). (see below) —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Phead128
Unfortunately I believe that User:Phead128 was unblocked prematurely. He is still being very disruptive and attacking editors. Edits like this are completely unacceptable. I would have to recommend the user be blocked again, or banned from editing. He has obviously not learnt his lesson. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, already saw it. Blocked for 31 hours. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:WW2InfoBox
Did you see this before you posted just now? You may have just taken the discussion at face value, but there was a lot of activity — both postings and deletions — before you gave your opinion. Klein zach  01:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen it, but I blocked Phead for the "idiot" comment. After seeing that and the "low moral fibre" comment, I'm about two centimeters from blocking UrbanNerd. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * UrbanNerd was provoking Phead. If you are gong to block one of them, I think you should block the other. -- Klein zach  02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if this has basically spiralled out of control, we might be better off going back to WP:ANI? -- Klein zach  02:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * UrbanNerd has again deleted my message to Template talk:WW2InfoBox, see here.  Klein zach  03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "group message" was not only off-topic gossip, but not constructive, and posted in an active debate. There is no room for this kind of trash during the middle of a long debate. If you have a problem with me post on MY talk page, not the articles talk page. As I explained to you on your talk page before you childishly deleted it with the edit summary of "delete attack. Don't write to this page", yes Phaed got me upset and I said he had low moral fabric, after he repeatedly called people idiots and other various insults. I realized my mistake and I crossed it out and moved on. I suggest you do the same. This kind of gossip/edit warring is counterproductive and a waste of everyones time. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the latest deletion of my messages by UrbanNerd :. Will he start deleting messages from your talk page as well? -- Klein zach  04:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that Drmies has given a final warning, so we'll leave it at that for now. As for the idea that blocking one and not the other is unfair, it's worth noting that he had just been blocked for disruptive editing, so the bar for getting reblocked is and was exceptionally low. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but UrbanNerd actually has a record of 4 previous blocks for personal attacks/harassment, whereas Phead128 had a clean record up to 25 May. -- Klein zach  13:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * UrbanNerd has continued to remove Kleinzach's comments, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now withdrawn from this (WW2InfoBox) discussion. See my comments at User_talk:Drmies. -- Klein zach  23:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikicup
My apologies too for even including those to begin with. Here's another question -- will it count if your contributions provided the basis of the DYK hook? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, it's a content competition. We want to see significant contributions to the article before awarding points for the DYK result. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Op-ed
I saw your comment about the caption in the picture being US based. Just to let you know, I actually addressed that in the article body, noting that while we originally had a primarily US based quality article pool its evolved now to include a more global representation, singling out ships from Germany and Japan as the specific example. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I added onto my comment on Nick's talk page because I realized my comment was really unclear. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup – 3 more DYKs
Sorry to trouble you again Ed, but that user added 3 more DYKs (Roholte Church, Wildlife of Haiti and Emilio Boggio) to claim WIkiCup points after my last notification. You make the call, but IMHO, those three articles don't appear to have much "significant work" put into them. This is getting pretty ridiculous – he's already placed 4 ineligible DYKs that had to be removed by you and yet he's still continuing to do this?! Isn't there a rule dealing with persistently problematic WikiCup competitors somewhere? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay. This is being taken care of! Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your support! :)

Phead128 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>